It does feel like that.
this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2024
1340 points (97.5% liked)
memes
10322 readers
1837 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, that's not why leftists struggle to achieve change in Capitalist systems, nor is your point anything other than a refusal to answer the points given.
No-True-Scotsman doesn't apply if there are important definitional differences. Social Democracy retains the exact same power balances and mode of production as Capitalism, because it is Capitalism. Socialism isn't merely a synonym for "good," it is an alternative mode of production raised by leftists to solve the issues present in Capitalism.
An actual example of a No-True-Scotsman would be a Marxist saying Anarchists aren't Socialists, or vice-versa, as they both maintain the same operation of Worker Ownership.
Did you actually just No-True-Scotsman the entire concept of a No-True-Scotsman?
Nah, I explained it to you.
When you were a student, did you attempt to say your Biology teacher was doing a "No-True-Scotsman" when they explained that Spiders are Arachnids, not Insects? You truly can't respond in good-faith, because you don't actually care about being right, but refusing to acknowledge when you might actually be wrong!
Touch grass.
I checked out of any possibility of a good-faith conversation when you said "that's not socialism". Any conversation that starts with splitting hairs about definitions goes nowhere. Especially about leftism. Or metal music.
What's the difference between Leftism and Socialism, in your eyes?
I disagree with you saying that getting terms straight so we both know what the other is actually talking about will get nowhere. On the contrary, if we continued that conversation, there's a much larger chance of nothing happening, don't you think?
Tell me how I can be good-faith, in your eyes. I try to be, but you seem to always disengage as soon as a converation starts.
I don't disagree about that metal take, btw. The splintering into a million subgenres has led to people fighting over genre-bending music.
Well, first I think I should give a note about framing: Socialism, Leftism, any of the -isms are all such large movements that there will necessarily be some overlap with multiple definitions, and I think that saying "x-ism is always this and never that" is a fool's errand.
Both Leftism and Socialism are a kind of catchall umbrella term for a number of different more specific ideologies.
In general, I would say neoliberalism overlaps quite a lot with centrism, but a bit to the left of it. Neoliberalism grades away to socialism at roughly the point of social democracy (this is where I sit on the political spectrum). Socialism is a HUGE sphere, since it's become a bit of a catchall term, but I would say Leftism starts where Socialism departs neoliberalism, and on the left end of the spectrum Leftism itself goes beyond socialism and into communism and its more radical forms.
Say "I think" instead of "this is so" when talking about ideologies. Ideologies are fuzzy, not rigid.
But what is Leftism and what is Socialism? You say they're fuzzy as all ideologies are, but you don't actually define any of them. Are they just vibes?
I think it makes more sense to define terms by their mechanics, rather than goals, or intentions.
Personally, it makes more sense to me to refer to Socialism by the mechanics raised and agreed upon by self-identifying Socialists for centuries. The common thread, whether Marxist, Anarchist, Syndicalist, or so forth, appears to be Worker Ownership of the Means of Production.
Why do you disagree with that? I get that you say that it's fuzzy with ideologies, but certainly, you must see how it's easier to define economic structures by their mechanisms, and not their goals, right?
Wouldn't "owning the means of production" be a goal, rather than a mechanism?
Social democracy for example still believes in workers owning the means of production, but with a degree of gradualism that most Leftists find icky.
Depends on what you're talking about, I suppose. Are you including strategy in the definition of the structure?
I think, for example, Socialism is the structure, being Worker Ownership of the Means of Production. Different Socialist tendencies, such as Marxism, Anarchism, Syndicalism, and so forth, seek to establish this structure in different ways and means, and thus have their own structures and ways of achieving them.
I would, therefore, not classify Socialism as an ideology, but a structure, and Marxism, Anarchism, Syndicalism, and so forth, as ideologies.
Social Democracy is a bit unique, in that for many Social Democrats, Socialism (the structure) is largely off the table, at large! Social Democracy is what I would consider to be a truly centrist position - it combines state-run and owned industries like railways and oil production with Capitalism as the dominant mode of production.
In my view, Left and Right are largely useless terms, and as such should be used to refer to whether or not an ideology or structure is revolutionary or reactionary in terms of the underlying structure, so because global Capitalism is the dominant structure, Capitalist ideologies are right of center while Socialist ideologies are left of center. This fits with the French origins as well, back when Liberalism was revolutionary against Monarchism.
I'm curious why you consider Neoliberalism to be left of center, rather than right of center. Are you referring to the Overton Window, a vibe, or what? What do you consider to be "Socialism" itself?
Bro, you put more thought into your first comment than this dumb motherfucker has generated in their entire life. You can argue with a pigeon about epistemology, but that doesn't mean you should.
You don't even know how to say "epistemology", much less what it means. Pick your knuckles off the ground before you comment on other people's intelligence.
🐦
Theocracy and laissez-faire capitalism would be right of center. You know, the dominant ideology of Republicans? If you've forgotten they exist for a moment, this may be a good time to check your own echo chamber. They very may well be in power next year.
Slight tangent: Leftists tend to retreat so far into their own safe spaces that they forget a solid 30% of the US is farther right than the farthest right person they've ever met. Nazism is not hyperbole, it's a legitimate belief that is ascendant right now.
Under its definition, social democracy would also be socialism, since owning the means of production is the eventual goal. Unlike most other ideologies, it attempts to reach that goal with as little disruption of the capitalist framework as possible. Thus I would call social democracy the most centrist of the socialist ideologies, though I would say all socialist ideologies are left of center (see above).
It's also important to note that this is within a Western framework, not exclusively US or European. One issue I think with discussions like this is Americans will say that social democracy is on the Far Left (which is true...in America) and Europeans will say it's centrist or perhaps right of center (which is true...in (western) Europe). If your framework is the Middle East, then the idea of social security is radically left wing.
I also think it's important to note that Socialism is not a purely economic structure. There are strong social elements as well. Socialists don't want to own the means of production for the funsies. Socialism goes hand in hand with a strong social safety net, worker protections, environmental protections, etc...generally, the good of the many over the good of the few. When we talk about the difference between different flavors of leftism, it's easy to compare the economics alone. But especially in contrast with centrist and right wing ideologies, the differences in societal goals is stark.
But what are you using to determine left and right? You still haven't given that, it's still just vibes. You haven't shown why you believe it's better to consider Neoliberalism, a Capitalist ideology, as left of center.
The unnecessary cheap shot at leftists was also unsubstantiated. Antifascism is dominated by the far-left.
I think you're also giving Social Democracy too much credit, in that people in the Nordics do not consider it to be Socialist, and many don't have Socialism as their goal. Reading Reform or Revolution might do you well.
Then you speak on the Overton Window, which is probably what you're using to determine left/right. I pretty firmly disagree with using that when discussing what ideologies are left and right, as that changes all the time.
The final bit is that you assume all Socialists want Socialism for other safety nets, which isn't necessarily true either. Market Socialists, Libertarian Socialists, and Anarchists may not want any social safety nets, and they would still be Socialist.
Sorry, got banned and let the conversation lapse.
I think this is the root of our issue. Ideologies do change over time, and across societies and geographies. What is left of center in the US is right of center in other countries, and what's right of center in the US is left of center in other countries.
I have left wing politics in the context of the US. They may be right of center in other countries. But in the US, what most lemmings would consider as "leftism" is such a vanishingly small group they don't even make an impact nationally.
So I suppose it is just vibes-based. Would you not rather anchor your descriptor to a fixed, uncontestable point easily understood? Considering we are on Lemmy, Leftism is the status quo, Liberalism is almost as numerous, and fascism is vanishingly small in the grand scheme of Lemmy. You would be in the right of the Overton Window here, would you not?
Therefore, it is better in my opinion to ditch the Overton Window and describe positions by where they stand in relation to Socialism and Capitalism.
I don't know if you could say "easily understood". "Liberal" and "socialist" have very different meanings depending on whether you're speaking to a US audience or a European audience. That's not my definitions, that's just the common usage.